[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 30455-30459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       THE ALASKA WILDLIFE REFUGE

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to raise my concerns about this 
process and the unbelievable avenues through which this legislation is 
coming before us, just to try to open up the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge for oil drilling.
  As my colleagues have just been discussing on the floor, these are 
priorities, for Congress to pass the DOD appropriations bill and the 
DOD authorization bill. As this Senator sees it, we could wrap up this 
business today and go home. But because a provision in this legislation 
coming over from the House opens up drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, you bet there are Members on this side of the aisle--
Members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate--who have 
great concerns over this measure.
  As one Senator who would like to wrap up the year today and go home 
and spend time with my family, I know there are the prospects of us 
staying here to fight for something we believe in. It is very clear 
that we could go home today if the Senator from Alaska would agree to 
take this language out of the bill. So, in fact, this process is being 
held up over the fact that he has inserted a controversial measure into 
this legislation. It is such a controversial measure that House 
Democrats and Republicans refused to vote on a budget bill while it 
still remained in the legislation. That gives you some idea of how 
controversial it is. In fact, they took it out of the budget bill 
because they could not get the budget bill passed with it in there.
  Now my colleague wants to say that somehow he is not holding up the 
process when it is very clear that he is holding up the process. We 
could all go home today instead of arguing over something that has been 
argued over for 25 years. There is a reason we have been arguing over 
it for 25 years, and that is because there has been great division over 
this issue.
  The notion that this is about national security is unbelievable to 
me. To me, what national security is really about is passing a clean 
DOD appropriations bill that gives resources to our troops. In fact, we 
should give the military in Iraq the ability to do a better job 
protecting the security and infrastructure of the pipeline there. We 
lose 800,000 barrels a day of oil in Iraq that could be part of helping 
the Iraqi government get on its feet and the rest of the world energy 
markets stabilize. But this ANWR measure is holding up a DOD bill 
instead of giving the military all the resources they need. We are not 
talking about an oil supply 10 years from now; we are talking about 
something we should be doing today in terms of securing existing 
infrastructure. We should strip this ANWR language out and pass this 
bill.
  I understand the Senator from Alaska thinks this ANWR provision is in 
the interest of some, because I think it is in Alaska's interest. In 
2005, petroleum counted for 86 percent of the State of Alaska's general 
revenues--86 percent of their State revenues. In fact, according to a 
published article, State officials expect that at least until 2013, 74 
percent of Alaska's general purpose revenues will come from oil 
revenues. So I get why the State of Alaska cares so much. In fact, CBO 
recently calculated that Alaska will get $5 billion in revenue from 
this legislation if it is passed. Of course Alaska cares about this. Of 
course Alaska would hold up the legislative process and keep us here 
extra days to get this bill passed and get ANWR in by hook or crook, 
any possible way. Of course they would.
  But don't say that this is in the national interest. What is in the 
national interest of our country is to get over our overdependence on 
foreign oil. We need to start doing that now, as well as get off of our 
overdependence on domestic oil and fossil fuels in general. Instead of 
implementing this Arctic drilling program, we ought to be implementing 
policies that help us diversify and move forward, so people can have 
affordable energy rates in this country and not be held hostage by 
these special interests.
  It is another thing to say, somehow, this legislation has arrived 
here through a clean process. The fact is you would basically have to 
overrule the Parliamentarian--which is our judge here. It is basically 
like going to a Federal court, having a judge rule on something, then 
when the judge rules on it voting to overturn them, and then a few 
minutes later reinstating the rule. If that isn't a quick fix around 
the legislative process here, I don't know what is. But this whole ANWR 
measure, trying to get it on any piece of legislation that is moving, 
has been exactly that--every attempt to make the process go without 
adhering to the rules.
  The fact is this legislation comes to us and basically takes away 
about seven different laws that would otherwise apply to drilling in 
the Arctic. It really is--it is a free ride, a back door that 
circumvents seven different Federal laws and countless regulations that 
have been on the books for years. So this is not just passing ANWR; 
this is basically giving the oil companies a sweetheart deal around 
Federal laws and regulations that no other company has ever gotten. I 
guarantee, Scoop Jackson would roll over in his grave. There is no way 
Scoop Jackson would support drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge when 
you are overturning a law, the National Environmental Policy Act, that 
he wrote. So you can mention Scoop Jackson's name a thousand times, 
there is no way he would support this process.
  Did you ever ask yourself why he didn't just authorize it to begin 
with? I think he knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted further 
review, and

[[Page 30456]]

he certainly wanted environmental laws to apply. But, no, this 
legislation basically overrides the environmental statutes. It creates 
ill-defined environmental standards. It has a waiver for the lease and 
sale of land and cuts off the Secretary's ability to protect 
environmentally sensitive areas, and it allows the Secretary to lease 
an unlimited amounts of coastal plain. It takes a weak reclamation 
standard and basically hamstrings the Federal agencies that are 
supposed to do their job when it comes to protecting federal lands.
  Maybe it is no surprise that, after trying to stick this on the 
budget bill, having both Democrats and Republicans in the House defeat 
it, now there is an effort to try to stick it on the DOD appropriations 
bill.
  In this Senator's opinion, this is nothing more than legislative 
blackmail, to try to get colleagues to vote for something because it is 
a must-pass bill. That's because, in fact, the proponents of this 
measure know that there is great opposition to this process and to 
drilling in the Arctic. I know the Senator from Alaska said in the 
Fairbanks paper that he was not going to hold up the process. But 
newspapers across the country know exactly what is going on. In fact, 
the Oregonian just said a few days ago:

       Arctic drilling has been thrown in with the defense bill 
     and the emotionally charged matter of supporting American 
     troops at a time of war. It does not belong there, something 
     that ought to be obvious to all but the most cynical members 
     of Congress.

  All but the most cynical Members of Congress should see that this is 
obvious.
  We actually had a letter from military leaders, military leaders in 
our country, raising the same concern:

     . . . any effort to attach controversial legislative language 
     authorizing drilling to the Defense appropriations conference 
     report will jeopardize Congress' ability to provide our 
     troops and their families the resources they need in a timely 
     fashion.

  That is coming from General Zinni and many others who wrote to us 
saying, don't do this. This is crazy. We want to get about the process 
of getting a DOD bill passed.
  The New Hampshire newspaper said:

       He has threatened to attach the provision to the Hurricane 
     Katrina relief bill or to 
     the defense appropriations bill, a cynical 
     ploy. . . .

  Trying to attach this, basically, should be rejected. Both approaches 
should be rejected.
  Even my newspaper in Seattle called this, ``dubious congressional 
standards of fair play,'' because they know that this situation is one 
in which any legislative rule will be thrown out, just to pass drilling 
in ANWR.
  We know that this issue is not without controversy. We know the oil 
spills of the past are raising great concerns for people. If they have 
raised so many great concerns for us, why would we give a blanket pass 
to drilling in ANWR and overthrow those Federal rules and regulations 
that apply everywhere else? Why should we go to the extent of trying to 
attach it to a bill that has to pass, knowing that you are going to ask 
Members to overrule the Parliamentarian and then, after you basically 
have tried to overrule him, then go back and say the Parliamentarian 
was right?
  How far are we willing to go? How many rules are we willing to break 
in this process just to get a small amount of oil 10 years from now?
  What the American people want is for us to do our job and send money 
to the troops and get them home. They do not want to sit and watch us 
stay here for 3 or 4 more days to continue to complain about this 
process. What they want us to do is pass legislation that gives the 
troops the support they need. Let us give the troops the money they 
need to make sure that 800,000 barrels a day are protected right now. 
Let's do a better job of making sure we're making the right 
infrastructure investments, which will help everybody. Let's make sure 
that gets done.
  But this Senator still remains in opposition to drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because you can't tell me that 5,504 
spills on an annual basis in the North Slope since 1996 is a good track 
record. You just can't tell me that all those oil spills in the Prudhoe 
Bay area and near the Trans-Alaska Pipeline constitute a good enough 
track record to now say you can open up drilling in an Arctic wildlife 
refuge and have no impact. Last year, those spills totaled more than 
1.9 million gallons of toxic substance, mostly crude oil and diesel.
  We know where this is heading. We know where it is heading with no 
great result for the United States. We are not going to see any oil for 
a long time. It is a time in which the United States should be making 
an investment in diversifying off of our dependence on oil instead, and 
supporting our troops.
  This Senator plans to talk a long time about this issue. This Senator 
knows that we could be going home today, having finished our work, 
having a session that is ended, having Members back at home talking to 
their constituents and having the troops realize that we didn't play 
politics with their legislation.
  I hope we will get about doing business here today and closing this 
legislative session. That's what we should be doing instead of figuring 
out what three or four other rules in the process need to be broken 
just to try to pass ill-conceived legislation that we have been 
battling over for 25 years. Let us not hold the troops' money hostage. 
Let's pass this legislation in a clean fashion and get home to our 
families.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague from the State of 
Washington just discussed an issue that is going to be a recontested 
issue this week; that is, drilling in ANWR and an amendment that allows 
the drilling in ANWR in Alaska attached to the DOD appropriations bill.
  I was a member of the conference committee that met yesterday 
starting at noon. I believe we finished close to 5 o'clock yesterday 
afternoon. We had a pretty aggressive and contentious discussion about 
this issue.
  I just want to say that while I believe we need to produce more 
energy, I supported the Energy bill. I was a member of the Energy 
Committee and am proud to support the Energy bill. It does mean that we 
need to produce more oil, coal, and natural gas; produce more renewable 
forms of energy; move toward a different energy construct, such as 
hydro and fuel cells; have more efficiency and conservation. I support 
all of that.
  But I said then, and I believe now that opening the most pristine 
area of our country that has been set aside ought to be a last resort, 
not a first resort. Deciding to open that now and getting oil from it 
10 years from now makes precious little sense to me especially when 
there are alternatives. But even more importantly, adding this 
controversial issue to the Defense appropriations conference report 
that is going to come to the Senate really makes no sense at all. It 
adds a very controversial provision to a bill that basically is to fund 
the actions of the Defense Department and support our troops. I do not, 
for the life of me, understand why this is being done.
  In order for this to be accomplished, there will have to be a debate 
in this Chamber. When the conference report comes to the floor of the 
Senate, which I assume is going to be Wednesday, the debate will ensue, 
and those who oppose adding this unrelated, extraneous, highly 
controversial issue to the Defense appropriations bill will make a 
point of order that it violates the rules of the Senate, and it does. 
There is no question about that. This is violative of rule XXVIII of 
the Senate. My guess is, from what I hear, the proponents of doing this 
will then, after the Parliamentarian and the Chair would rule that this 
violates rule XXVIII of the Senate, ask that the ruling be overturned 
and have a vote on appealing the ruling of the Chair--in effect, 
changing the rules of the Senate in the

[[Page 30457]]

middle in order to accomplish doing something that otherwise would 
violate the rules of the Senate.
  Well, they are going to do that the Wednesday before Christmas, do it 
on a Defense appropriations bill. I, for the life of me, do not 
understand how they think that is justifiable. But as I indicated, it 
will be controversial and difficult this week as we go through this.
  One of my colleagues who is pursuing this says he has a right to 
pursue it. Right; indeed, he does. He has a right to pursue it, but it 
will require, in my judgment, the violation of the rules of the Senate, 
and therefore the changing of the rules of the Senate in the middle of 
this process. Doing it not only upholds his right but violates the 
rights of others in the Senate, in my judgment. It abrogates other 
rights that exist in the Senate.
  I know this is all inside baseball to a lot of people, and foreign 
language to people if they do not understand the rules of the Senate, 
but rules are rules. There are rules established for the way the Senate 
works for a very good purpose. If, in this circumstance, we decide that 
in this conference we can take anything, totally unrelated, anything, 
and stick it on this conference report, bring it to the well of the 
Senate in a way that is violative of the rules, but then simply by 
majority vote decide to appeal the ruling of the Chair, it violates the 
rules and changes the rules and changes them back in a minute. There is 
kind of an arrogance there that, in my judgment, does not befit the 
Senate. We will have that discussion at some point later.
  I wanted to say that I also was a member of the conference yesterday 
in which we discussed the issue of Katrina relief; that is, relief for 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that hit the gulf coast. I said the Senator 
from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, who comes from that region and who has 
pushed very hard to represent the gulf region in a very substantial way 
has been successful in doing that.


                            Disaster Relief

  The one piece that yesterday bothered me, and I indicated so and 
offered an amendment on it, was a piece that the Senate had, with the 
leadership of Senator Cochran, previously represented to the House of 
Representatives, and that was there are many farmers who were 
devastated by these hurricanes in the gulf. These hurricanes came 
rushing through and destroyed all the crops, and farmers were 
devastated. So there is about $404 million in the disaster package that 
will help those farmers in the gulf.
  The point I made was--and I know the Senator from Mississippi had 
previously supported this point because the Senate position was that we 
should provide disaster relief not just for those farmers in the gulf--
they, in fact, should have disaster relief, but there are others in 
this country who had weather-related disasters, and they ought to, as 
well, be people who would be eligible for disaster assistance.
  In my State, for example, torrential rains in the spring meant that 1 
million acres of land were not planted, a million acres were not able 
to be planted. If you are a farmer and your acreage is in that million 
acres, you are done. You are in huge trouble. So they ought to also 
qualify for disaster aid. I offered the amendment yesterday afternoon 
to add the $1.6 billion to the package that would have allowed us to be 
fair to all of the rest of the farmers in this country who have been 
hit with weather-related disasters, and the Senate conferees passed my 
amendment. We sent it to the House conferees, and they rejected the 
amendment. So now we have a circumstance where there is no disaster 
relief for those who have been hit by this disaster and weather-related 
disasters in other parts of the country.
  Family farming is probably easy for some to forget, but family 
farming is very important to our country. These are families who live 
out under the yard light, in many cases far from town working to try to 
make a living against all the odds, against the potential of a grain 
market collapsing, against the odds that there may be disease in their 
crops or hail or too much rain or too little rain, all kinds of natural 
disasters. And we, generally speaking, reached out to those family 
farmers to say we want to help you because we want to be able to keep 
family farms on the land in this country.
  Yesterday's action by which the House of Representatives rejected 
that aid, the disaster assistance, is, in my judgment, a huge mistake. 
We have had severe drought in Illinois, Missouri, parts of Iowa, and 
other States. As I indicated, we had torrential rains in some disaster 
areas in my State earlier this year, and there are other parts of the 
country in which family farmers suffered the same fate. I think it is 
wrong for this Congress to decide that some will get assistance and 
others will not, if all have--in terms of the groups who would be 
affected, if all of them were affected by weather-related disasters. I 
just think that is wrong.
  The House of Representatives rejected that because they said the $1.6 
billion was above the agreement, and the President and the White House 
would not support it.
  I want to just talk a little about our fiscal priorities. Because 
something is seriously wrong here.
  Last year, we had a provision in this Chamber that provided a very 
significant tax cut, and it was a tax cut for the largest corporations 
in our country.
  I objected to it, standing at this desk, but it got through the 
Congress, and it is now law. I want to talk about that tax cut just for 
a minute because it is not just on the order of $1.6 billion we could 
have used to help family farmers struggle through a tough time, it is 
about a $60 billion tax cut to the biggest corporations in our country. 
It was something that had nothing to do with the substance of the bill. 
It was called the JOBS Act that was run through the Congress, the JOBS 
Act.
  Presumably, it was titled the JOBS Act because those who offered it 
said it would create new jobs.
  In fact, I will read a couple of comments from my colleagues. One of 
my colleagues says the idea is for 1 year to reduce the tax burden and 
bring those profits back into this country, to invest them in ways that 
help your business, and this creates new jobs.
  Another of my colleagues said, well, this is insourcing. This 
insources jobs to the United States. This will create a lot of jobs in 
the United States.
  Another of my colleagues said if you are interested in creating jobs, 
it has been estimated on a conservative basis this proposal will create 
660,000 jobs.
  What was this tax proposal? It was to say to the largest corporations 
in this country, do business here and overseas, if you have earned 
income overseas, at some point you expect to bring that income back to 
this country to your headquarters and to your stockholders, and when 
you do that you would be paying corporate income taxes.
  We have a corporate income tax rate of 35 percent, and when you 
repatriate earnings, as they call it, from your overseas operation, you 
pay income taxes in this country.
  But there is a special little deal that has been in law for decades 
and decades--in fact, the first person who tried to get rid of this 
special deal was John F. Kennedy. That tells you how long it has been 
there. It is called deferral. Do business overseas, move your plant, 
move your jobs, do business overseas and, by the way, you get a tax 
break. You don't have to pay taxes on those earnings from overseas 
until you bring them back to this country. So that has been around for 
a long time.
  That tax break anticipates, though, at some point, even though you 
can defer paying taxes, you are going to have to bring the profits back 
when you do business overseas, and you are going to have to pay taxes 
in this country on those profits. It would be at the corporate tax rate 
of 35 percent, except a year ago this Congress said the following: We 
would like to create a great, big old dessert tray for the biggest 
corporations in the country. When you bring your profits back in the 
next year, we will tax them at 5.25 percent--no, not 35 percent, 5.25 
percent.
  Do people around this county have that right? Is there a Johnson or 
an Olson family, that brings their profits back or pays income tax at a 
5.25-percent tax rate? No, no, no. Real people

[[Page 30458]]

pay taxes at rates far in excess of 5.25 percent. But now some of the 
biggest corporations in the country are repatriating profits to this 
country and paying 5.25 percent in income taxes--5.25 percent, a 
fraction of what the lowest income people in this country are paying. 
And, oh, by the way, they are also cutting jobs at the same time.
  Now, let me just show a picture of a building in the Cayman Islands 
because it is part of the puzzle. This is a picture of a building in 
the Cayman Islands. This is a five-story building on Church Street in 
the Cayman Islands. It is called the Ugland House. This five-story 
white building on Church Street is the official address for 12,748 
corporations.
  Now, you may ask, how can that be? It is just an address. It does not 
mean anything. All it means is they set up an address in the Cayman 
Islands so they can run their profits through the Cayman Islands and 
avoid paying taxes in the United States.
  Madam President, 12,748 companies run income through this building in 
the Cayman Islands. It is just an address.
  Now, the folks who push this bill on the floor of the Senate, that 
has now cut taxes by $60 billion--$60 billion it costs this country in 
lost tax revenue from the biggest corporations in the country that are 
now repatriating income at tax rates that are a fraction of what every 
other American pays--those folks said this is going to create jobs. 
Well, really? Let's just look at that. I will just give you a couple 
examples. I could bring over a lot of charts.
  Hewlett-Packard, they are bringing back $14.5 billion they made 
overseas, and they are going to pay a 5.25-percent income tax rate. 
They also announced they are going to cut 14,500 jobs.
  Motorola, $4.4 billion they are bringing back in repatriated taxes, 
paying a 5.25-percent income tax rate. They are cutting jobs.
  Colgate Palmolive, they are cutting jobs.
  The list is pretty substantial, actually.
  Merck Corporation is cutting jobs, and repatriating earnings.
  So to my colleagues who are on the floor pointing out that if we just 
pass this $60 billion tax cut, in 1 year--$60 billion tax cut for the 
largest companies in our country that do business overseas--they would 
create more jobs at home, I wonder, now, how they will come to the 
floor of the Senate and answer the question: If you actually see the 
repatriation of about $200 to $220 billion, and companies using a 
substantial portion of that to buy back their stock, and other 
companies repatriating it and cutting jobs, how do you, then, justify 
having given a $60 billion tax cut to the biggest corporations in this 
country? There will not be much of an answer to that.
  I think of the quote from Will Rogers when I think of the wool that 
was pulled over the eyes of the Congress, or perhaps it was not. 
Perhaps the Congress is controlled by a majority who just find it 
important every day to get up to see how you can give big tax breaks to 
the biggest corporations or the highest income earners. Perhaps that is 
just an advocation that is now natural for those who control this 
Congress.
  Will Rogers once said: It is not what they know that bothers me, it 
is what they say they know for sure that just ain't so. That is the 
case with this $60 billion tax cut, in 1 year, that affects the largest 
corporations in this country.
  Here are some of the editorials and notices about it. October 16 of 
this year:

       It shouldn't escape Americans' attention that U.S. 
     companies have disclosed plans to repatriate $206 billion in 
     foreign profits this year under a one-time tax break allowed 
     by Congress on the grounds--you guessed it--that such a big 
     tax break would ignite a strong spurt in job growth. The 
     upshot, of course, is that no such job spurt appears to be 
     materializing.
       Some have even announced plans to cut operations and jobs. 
     Colgate Palmolive repatriated $800 million in foreign 
     profits, planning to cut 4,450 jobs and a third of its plants 
     over the next 4 years.

  Interestingly,

       Even the primary advocate for the special, one-time tax 
     break, economist Allen Sinai, is now soft pedaling his 
     prediction of 660,000 new jobs over 5 years. He now says the 
     efficacy of the tax break will be hard to prove.

  The Chicago Tribune, August 11: Motorola disclosed Wednesday it will 
bring $4.4 billion in profits back under the controversial Federal tax 
law that was passed, and announced Wednesday it will cut 500 more 
workers than previously announced.
  Hewlett-Packard is going to bring back $14.5 billion. And, by the 
way, they get to pay at a 5.25-percent income tax rate. Wouldn't every 
American like to pay an income tax rate of 5.25 percent? But it is not 
so. Just the big shots do. They pay 5.25 percent, bring back $14.5 
billion, and lay off 14,500 workers. Almost perfect symmetry, isn't it? 
You bring back $14.5 billion, pay a bottom-rate tax rate that nobody 
else gets, and you lay off 14,500 workers.
  It is not only this technique that is bothering me but many others 
these days. There was a story recently in the Wall Street Journal about 
some of the largest technology corporations that are setting up 
buildings in other countries. This one is in Ireland. You set up a 
building in Ireland--a tiny little quiet building, on a quiet street, 
in Dublin, Ireland--and then move your intellectual property, 
programming, and software and so on to a wholly-owned subsidiary in 
that country, and then license it back in other countries where you are 
selling it, and run billions of dollars--billions of dollars--through 
that little address in Ireland.
  What is the purpose of that? Avoiding taxes. So you do not have to 
pay taxes. In this case, one of the companies avoided paying $500 
million a year in taxes to the U.S. Government by moving its software 
to Ireland, running the licensing through Ireland, and essentially 
moving taxes and income away from the U.S. Government.
  The question is, When will this stop? We are up to our neck in debt. 
We have very substantial Federal deficits, the largest trade deficits 
in history, and we have corporations in this country that have decided 
they want all the advantages America has to offer. But they do not want 
the responsibilities to pay taxes. And they have friends in this 
Congress who will say: Oh, by the way, if you do pay, we will give you 
a special discount rate, one of these blue light specials. Regular 
folks are going to pay 20 percent, 30 percent, 35 percent, 36 percent, 
but, no, you get to pay 5.25 percent.
  I think it was Tom Paxton who used to sing that song ``I'm changing 
my name to Poland,'' after Poland got a Government loan some years ago. 
Perhaps there are American families who might want to change their name 
to Hewlett-Packard or Motorola or Merck. Perhaps American families 
would like to pay a 5.25-percent income tax rate. And maybe American 
families would like to set up an address on Church Street in the Cayman 
Islands so they can run their income through the Cayman Islands and 
avoid paying taxes. But maybe not.
  Most American families say the Pledge of Allegiance, believe in this 
country and its promise, understand we have things to do together. We 
have a Defense Department to fund. We build roads. We have the National 
Institutes of Health to fund. We do so many things together in 
Government. We educate our kids. We have security on the streets in the 
form of law enforcement.
  Maybe most Americans know that is what we do together, and the 
responsibility is to pay taxes. Do we like it? Not necessarily. Do we 
understand it? Sure. But not everybody apparently understands it, 
because some decide to run their business through this five-story 
building for the purpose of avoiding taxes.
  Our domestic individual tax rates are 10 percent, 15 percent, 25, 28, 
33, and 35. Those are the tax rates for individuals who file individual 
tax returns. There is only one tax rate I know of that is lower than 
that, and that is the tax rate the largest corporations will pay when 
they bring $220 billion back that this repatriation provision allows. 
So they will pay half the rate of the lowest rate the lowest income 
Americans

[[Page 30459]]

will pay. That is unbelievable. It was pushed through this Congress 
with the promise that it would produce more jobs.
  Most of us said that is nonsense. We knew it wasn't going to happen. 
But it was pushed through the Congress. At this desk right here, 
Senator Fritz Hollings--now not in the Senate; he retired--offered the 
amendment to strip this provision out of that tax bill. Those who 
wanted this provision would hear none of it. They wanted it. They got 
it. So now we have some of the highest income enterprises in the world 
paying a 5\1/4\-percent tax rate on the repatriation of profits.
  When I mentioned the building on Church Street in the Cayman Islands, 
Senator Levin and I had the General Accounting Office do an evaluation 
of who is running operations through these tax haven countries. Fifty-
nine of the 100 largest publicly traded Federal contractors--companies 
that contract with the Federal Government, that have tens of billions 
of dollars in contracts with the Federal Government--had established 
hundreds of subsidiaries in overseas tax havens. In other words, they 
want to do business with the Federal Government, make income from doing 
so, but want to run it through tax subsidiaries in tax havens to not 
pay taxes to the Federal Government. It is unbelievable.
  The point is, we sat yesterday in conference discussions for 4 hours 
and talked about all kinds of funding issues. There wasn't $1.6 billion 
to help family farmers through tough times, but there was $60 billion 
this year given to the largest corporations to repatriate their profits 
with the promise that they would produce new jobs. The fact is, those 
jobs don't exist. This was an unforgivable gift, a giveaway that made 
no sense. It is one more example of doing the wrong thing at the wrong 
time and pledging that somehow it is going to help advance the 
interests of our country.
  A man named Uwe Reinhardt from Princeton University probably captures 
all of this best in terms of priorities, warped priorities, wrong 
priorities. In a piece he had written talking about tax cuts and health 
insurance, he wrote a memo at the start of it: Dear God, we had to 
decide between health insurance and a tax cut, and we took all the 
money as a tax cut. We hope that pleases you. A grateful nation.
  This is, after all, about priorities, what makes our country 
stronger, what improves our country. We have a very substantial Federal 
budget deficit. Yet we will now, I believe this week, see the 
reconciliation bill with additional tax cuts that will substantially 
benefit upper income people. On top of the Federal budget deficit, we 
will see additional tax cuts benefiting upper income people. We have a 
substantial trade deficit, well over $700 billion a year, and a huge 
movement of American jobs overseas, especially to China. Any worry 
about that? Not much. You can't find much around here. I have spoken at 
length about it. We actually have the incentive, the perverse, obscene 
incentive that says to a company today, on Monday, anywhere in this 
country: If you fire your workers, put a padlock on the front door of 
your manufacturing plant and move the whole thing to China and hire 
Chinese workers, we will give you a deal. You get yourself a tax break.
  That is unbelievable, but it is in the law. Get rid of your 
manufacturing workers. Shut down your American plant. Move the jobs to 
China, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, we will give you a tax break.
  We have tried four times to shut down that tax break, and 
unbelievably, there is a majority of Senators who believe that tax 
break should continue to exist, a tax break that says: On tipping the 
balance, we believe we ought to provide incentives to move American 
jobs elsewhere, get rid of American jobs in search of 30-cent labor 
with 1 billion people around the world who are willing to work that way 
and companies who are interested in finding places where you can hire 
people for 30 cents an hour. You can dump the chemicals into the rivers 
and the air. And by the way, you don't have to have a safe work plant. 
And importantly, if somebody tries to organize because they don't like 
the working conditions, you can fire them. In some countries, they will 
put them in jail for you.
  We say: Want to get rid of your American workers, want to find 
cheaper labor someplace, get rid of all the encumbrances? We will give 
you a tax break if you want to do it.
  That is unbelievable, but it is part and parcel of this whole story 
about a five-story building with 12,748 companies calling it home for 
the purpose of getting a tax break by running income through the Cayman 
Islands. Once again, companies that want all of the opportunities that 
come with being American but seem to want to avoid some of the 
significant responsibilities; that is, to pay taxes to support this 
Government.
  We will, in the next 24 or 48 hours plus, have a robust and 
aggressive debate on the issue of attaching ANWR to the Defense 
appropriations bill. When that occurs--I assume on Wednesday--my hope 
is we will come to the right solution. The right solution is to pass 
legislation that will fund the troops, fund the needs of the Defense 
Department. We have considered and will consider the issue of ANWR in 
the future. There are other mechanics and other approaches by which 
that should be considered and will be considered in the Congress. I 
believe this is an inappropriate approach.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________